Personality and Individual Differences 199 (2022) 111809

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Review

Beyond grades: A meta-analysis of personality predictors of academic

behavior in middle school and high school☆
Phoebe R. Hessen *, Nathan R. Kuncel
University of Minnesota Department of Psychology, Elliott Hall, 75 E River Rd, Minneapolis, MN 55455, United States

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Research on personality predictors of academic success is plentiful, with past research focusing primarily on
Personality college populations and studying traditional personality predictors, such as the Big Five, and traditional aca­
Big Five demic outcomes, namely GPA. However, less is known about lower grade levels and other outcomes. This meta-
Grades
analysis examines research on personality and academic success in middle and high school to determine whether
Classroom behavior
previous results generalize to this younger population and to examine less commonly studied predictors (Psy­
Academic success
Middle school choticism, Emotional Intelligence) and less commonly studied academic behaviors including absenteeism,
High school classroom engagement, homework, misconduct, prosocial behavior, and achievement test scores. The results
confirm that personality functions similarly in adolescent students as in older populations for predicting grades
(apart from Openness, which is a stronger predictor for the younger population), but also reveals that different
sets of Big Five traits are needed to predict other types of academic outcomes.

1. Introduction including salary, graduate school performance, and job performance

(Ceci & Williams, 1997; Kuncel & Hezlett, 2010; Roth et al., 1996; Roth
Personality traits have proven to be important predictors of a wide & Clarke, 1998). However, students display a wide range of behaviors in
range of life outcomes (e.g., Roberts et al., 2007). Although cognitive school besides earning grades, and evidence indicates that success in
abilities remain consistently strong predictors of both academic and these other areas of school early in life can have important implications
broader life outcomes (c.f. Kuncel & Hezlett, 2010; Zisman & Ganzach, for later success (c.f. Spengler et al., 2018). Examining a richer array of
2022), an increased interest in evaluating both interpersonal and school behaviors can enhance our understanding of the proximal and
intrapersonal characteristics in academic settings has shifted attention distal effects of personality on later life outcomes (Damian et al., 2015;
towards a greater focus on the relationship between personality and Shiner et al., 2003).
performance at school. Perhaps because of the prominence of college Moving beyond grades, it is clear that student attendance, prosocial
admissions, recent and valuable reviews of the relationships between behaviors, school engagement, and also counterproductive behaviors
personality traits and academic outcomes have largely focused on stu­ can influence the learning of students and their peers. These behavioral
dent populations in post-secondary education and have focused on domains are also interesting because it is likely that aspects of person­
grades as the primary outcome variable (Credé & Kuncel, 2008; ality beyond Conscientiousness may be important predictors. Therefore,
O'Connor & Paunonen, 2007; Poropat, 2009). This research has unam­ this meta-analysis aims to address three important topics. The first is to
biguously established the importance of Conscientiousness, which also summarize evidence for the relationship between personality and aca­
demonstrates important relationships with success in work and broad demic success for younger populations, specifically for students in
life outcomes (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Roberts et al., 2007; Salgado, middle and high school. The second, and arguably more important, topic
1997). is to examine a wider range of outcome measures than earned grade
The large amount of attention paid to grades is certainly under­ point averages. The last is to examine potential moderators of these
standable, both because they are readily available and because grades relationships.
themselves are important and correlate with other life outcomes,

☆
The research presented here was previously used in partial fulfilment of a Bachelor's honors thesis at the University of Minnesota.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (P.R. Hessen).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2022.111809
Received 2 May 2022; Received in revised form 29 June 2022; Accepted 6 July 2022
Available online 17 August 2022
0191-8869/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
P.R. Hessen and N.R. Kuncel Personality and Individual Differences 199 (2022) 111809

1.1. Organizing the literature secondary school samples, these samples were relatively small and
examined grades as the sole outcome measure. Past research has
Research on personality has been ongoing since the early 20th cen­ demonstrated that personality changes occur with some frequency in
tury, but in its early days faced difficulties due to a lack of uniformity in adolescents. As adolescents age, they tend to become higher in Agree­
constructs and measures. Progress has been made towards a unification ableness and Conscientiousness, lower in Neuroticism, and increasingly
and standardization of personality theory with the popularization of the Open to Experience (Allik et al., 2004; Caspi et al., 2005). While these
Big Five or Five Factor model (Digman, 1989). The Big Five consists of mean-level shifts do not necessarily imply that there will be different
the broad personality traits of Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Ex­ correlational relationships between personality and academic outcomes
traversion, Neuroticism, and Openness to Experience. Studies of the Big across educational levels, there has not been sufficient research to pre­
Five indicate that these traits are enduring across the lifespan, found clude this possibility. Additionally, changes to the type or quality of
across different races, sexes, cultures, and languages, and have at least behavior demanded of students in the classroom could also result in
some biological and genetic basis (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Most changes to the traits that predict success in this domain. To the extent
important for this study is evidence that the Big Five can be measured that there are qualitatively different demands on student behavior in
effectively in children and adolescents, both using other-report (Mer­ middle and high school, as opposed to college, the pattern of relation­
vielde et al., 1995) and self-report (Barbaranelli et al., 2003) measures. ships between traits and performance may also change. These lines of
We use this model to organize the meta-analysis. With respect to research and theory suggest that examining the relationship between
grades earned, Conscientiousness is generally found to be the best pre­ non-cognitive predictors and performance in middle school and high
dictor with Openness often showing moderate correlations as well school is a fruitful area of study, and one which the present study will
(Poropat, 2009) and both are associated with study habits and attitudes address.
(Credé & Kuncel, 2008). Sizeable correlations of academic performance Finally, and most importantly, grades have been the focus of prior
with the other three Big Five traits have been found only sporadically, work. GPA is indeed an important and impactful outcome, as demon­
and do not show consistent trends. strated by research that has established its relationship with future
Other individual differences have been used to predict academic and outcomes (Roth et al., 1996; Roth & Clarke, 1998; Ceci & Williams,
job performance. One of the most prominent of these is emotional in­ 1997). However, students do more in school than earn grades and there
telligence (EI). Salovey and Mayer (1990) describe emotional intelli­ are several additional measures of academic behaviors that are of po­
gence to be, “the ability to monitor one's own and others' feelings and tential interest when assessing academic performance. Our meta-
emotions, to discriminate among them and to use this information to analysis examines several new outcomes. While it is likely that many
guide one's thinking and actions”. Substantial debate is ongoing in both of these outcomes are subsumed under higher order constructs (c.f.
academic and applied settings regarding the nature of EI and its utility Cuadrado et al., 2020 and their discussion of a general counterproduc­
for predicting valued outcomes. Several different approaches have been tive academic behavior construct), these outcomes are conceptually
proposed for the conceptualization and measurement of EI. While some separable and, as we will explore later on, show different relationships
researchers have adhered to the theory that EI is part of the realm of with the personality variables examined here. Therefore, it is important
human cognitive abilities and have attempted to measure it as a skill, to examine different aspects of classroom behavior separately.
others support a mixed model whereby EI has components of both traits We feel that the inclusion of a wider variety of academic behaviors in
and abilities. This lack of consensus on the conceptualization and our analysis is an essential step towards achieving a more nuanced un­
measurement of EI has led to considerable difficulty in advancing un­ derstanding of the relationship between personality and academic
derstanding of this construct. Proponents of the use of EI believe it can achievement (considered broadly). Personality traits have their effect on
add incremental validity to the prediction of performance and life out­ broad life outcomes through their influence on more specific behaviors.
comes, above and beyond the effects of (other) cognitive abilities and For example, there is a well-documented link between Conscientious­
personality. Critics of the construct argue that there is little support for ness and longevity. This relationship is important to document, but
EI as an ability due to the lack of a strong correlational relationship with what's more important is understanding why this relationship exists.
general cognitive ability (Van der Zee et al., 2002). They additionally Research that examined more specific behaviors found that this rela­
point to concerns about the substantial overlap of mixed model or trait- tionship is driven in large part by health behaviors, including substance
based EI with well-established personality constructs, as well as con­ use and abuse, risky sexual behavior, and diet and activity patterns
cerns about the low reliability of several EI measures (Davies et al., (Bogg & Roberts, 2004). As this example indicates, by studying more
1998). Despite these critiques, results from a recent meta-analysis specific behaviors we can improve our understanding of the associations
including primarily college-aged samples found evidence for the incre­ between personality and broader life outcomes. In this case, we believe
mental validity of EI over general mental ability and personality for that studying behaviors like absenteeism, homework behavior, and
predicting academic achievement (operationalized as grades and test classroom engagement or misbehavior can help us achieve a better un­
scores; MacCann et al., 2020). The precise nature of the relationship derstanding of academic achievement as a whole.
between emotional intelligence and academic performance in younger Absenteeism is associated with lower grades in college (Credé et al.,
populations remains less clear and so we include measures of emotional 2010) more difficulty acquiring credentials (Orr, 1998), delinquency
intelligence in this study. Also included, where available, are Eysenckian (Towberman, 1994), and lowered educational aspirations (Crespo,
Psychoticism, intended to represent the underlying trait that in extreme 1984). Given these concurrent and later life correlates of absenteeism, it
cases or abnormal populations results in psychosis (Eysenck, 1995), and is clear that regular attendance is an important component of academic
self-efficacy, which describes students' generalized belief in their own success. Furnham et al. (2003) found that personality variables, partic­
ability to succeed. ularly Conscientiousness and Neuroticism, predict class attendance in
university students. However, college students are generally left to their
1.2. Present study own devices while children have the influence of their parents. Because
school attendance in middle school and high school may be less voli­
Several previous meta-analyses of the relationship between indi­ tional on the part of students, and therefore less influenced by the stu­
vidual differences and academic outcomes, including O'Connor and dents' characteristic level of reliability and discipline, a weaker
Paunonen (2007) and Poropat (2009, 2010), have principally focused on relationship with Conscientiousness may be expected. Neuroticism
samples of college-aged students and have used GPA as the principal seems likely to continue to be related to absences even in a younger
outcome. The O'Connor and Paunonen meta-analysis focused entirely on population, specifically through its Withdrawal facet. The higher levels
this population, and while the Poropat analysis did include primary and of reported physical symptoms of illness by individuals high in

2
P.R. Hessen and N.R. Kuncel Personality and Individual Differences 199 (2022) 111809

Neuroticism may also play a role by resulting in more days out of school although Extraversion is associated with general approach-oriented
for illness (Williams & Wiebe, 2000). behavior, this may manifest in either positive behaviors (raising hands
Students' homework behavior will also be examined in the current in class, taking the lead on group projects) or negative behaviors (talking
study. Study skills and habits have been found to be strongly related to during lectures, distractibility) depending on a variety of personal and
academic performance in college students (Credé & Kuncel, 2008). This situational factors.
research also examined the relationships between the Big Five and Finally, students are often assessed on broad single occasion
homework behavior and found evidence of consistent relationships, achievement measures alongside grades earned in class. Standardized
particularly for Conscientiousness. Again, however, there is not a com­ test scores are of high academic importance for students and educators
parable meta-analysis that examines these relationships in younger alike, as they are frequently used to evaluate teacher performance,
students where parental involvement (Barger et al., 2019) plays an assess grade-level appropriate levels of knowledge in students, and aid
important role. This study will attempt to fill that gap in the literature. in admission decisions for both undergraduate and graduate programs
However, despite greater parental involvement, a student's level of (Kuncel & Hezlett, 2007). Several of the studies included in the current
Conscientiousness is still likely to impact how frequently and thoroughly analysis use test scores or percentiles from various scholastic achieve­
they complete homework, leading us to anticipate that the positive ment tests, such as the SSAT or GCSE, to operationalize academic
correlation between Conscientiousness and homework behavior found performance.
in a college sample will be maintained. We also expect that Agreeable­ However, given the different time frame and environment under
ness will be positively correlated with homework behavior due to it which standardized testing takes place as opposed to grades, there is
incorporating elements of cooperation and compliance. To the extent reason to believe that standardized test scores may have a different
that completing homework is seen as maintaining cooperation with relationship with personality than does GPA. Standardized tests
social norms in the classroom, it will align with one hypothesized cy­ constitute an example of a maximal performance situation, defined as a
bernetic function of Agreeableness (DeYoung, 2015). Finally, Openness situation in which participants are aware of being evaluated, have been
should also be positively correlated with homework because of its as­ instructed to perform at their maximum ability level, and are evaluated
sociation with intellect and need for cognition (Woo et al., 2007). over a short time frame, so that continuance of maximum effort is
Another criterion that will be examined in this study is the broad possible across the entire evaluation period (Sackett et al., 1988). These
construct of classroom misbehavior including aggression and disrup­ requirements clearly apply to the standardized testing situations
tions. Generally, this criterion is operationalized as any behaviors in the examined in this analysis, but not to the criteria of GPA, which is
classroom that violate the rules laid out for student behavior. High­ measured over a semester or a full academic year. Grades are better
lighting its importance as a facet of academic performance, aggression in measures of typical performance, meaning they are influenced more
the classroom has been examined in connection with and found to be strongly by day-to-day motivation. Past research has indicated that
related to outcomes like rejection, substance abuse, and school failure maximal performance is typically more strongly related to cognitive
(Pope & Bierman, 1999). Past research has indicated that personality is ability than to motivational traits (like the Big Five), so we expect
predictive of academic dishonesty in college students (Lee et al., 2020) generally smaller relationships between the Big Five traits and test
and of aggression and bullying behavior in adolescents (Connolly & scores, as compared to grades (Marcus et al., 2007). However, Openness
O'Moore, 2003). Unlike previous outcomes, here we expect Agreeable­ is the trait with the strongest relationship to cognitive ability, so we
ness to be the most important predictor, since the negative pole of expect to see a moderate relationship between Openness and test scores
Agreeableness is often conceptualized as aggression, and rule-breaking (DeYoung, 2020).
behavior is generally antithetical to the cooperative and altruistic na­
ture of Agreeableness. Conscientiousness is also expected to act as a 2. Method
meaningful negative predictor, with disinhibition (the negative pole of
Conscientiousness) being conceptually related to impulsive disruptive To locate studies for inclusion in this meta-analysis, online databases
behavior and the inability to control negative reactions (Krueger & or search engines including PsycINFO, PubMed, ERIC, ProQuest Digital
Markon, 2013). Dissertations, and Google Scholar were searched. The search strings
In addition to misbehaving, thankfully, students can also behave in used to search these databases included various combinations of the
notably positive ways in the classroom. Individual studies conceptualize terms personality, Big Five, noncognitive, emotional intelligence, self-
and measure positive classroom behaviors in related but distinct ways. efficacy, academic, middle school, high school, adolescent, GPA, grades,
Generally, measures of positive classroom behaviors in the literature fall performance, test scores, aggression, absenteeism, cheating, academic
into one of two categories. The first is those that demonstrate engage­ misconduct, misbehavior and achievement. The references in the articles
ment, such as participation in class (e.g. Spengler et al., 2013), partici­ retrieved by these searches were reviewed, in addition to articles that
pation in extracurriculars (e.g. McCabe et al., 2016), or holding a school cited the articles retrieved by the searches. The abstracts and methods
office. These behaviors demonstrate active, approach-oriented engage­ sections of articles retrieved by the literature review were preliminarily
ment with the learning environment. The second category are prosocial screened for relevance. Studies that appeared to be relevant were then
behaviors, such as academic and social adjustment (e.g. Hair & Gra­ screened more closely for inclusion in the analysis.
ziano, 2003) or recognitions for showing respect and appropriate In addition to the published literature, we also expanded the scope of
behavior at school (e.g. Ivcevic & Brackett, 2014). These behaviors our search to include unpublished graduate and undergraduate disser­
reflect a more passive alignment with academic social norms and the tations and theses. The unpublished studies do not appear to be of lower
avoidance of misbehavior. Although the two are correlated, a quiet quality and have the advantage of capturing research that is less likely to
student could demonstrate good prosocial behavior but less engagement be impacted by publication bias. Guidelines for meta-analyses recom­
behavior. mend capturing this work (c.f. Banks et al., 2012; Rothstein & Bushman,
We expect Conscientiousness, Openness and Agreeableness to be 2012) and we see this as a strength of the study.
associated both with prosocial classroom behavior and with classroom Criteria for inclusion in the present meta-analysis were that studies
engagement behavior. We expect that Agreeableness may have a a) included some measure of personality (Big Five, emotional intelli­
stronger tie to prosocial behavior, given its relationship to rule following gence, self-efficacy, or Eysenckian Psychoticism); b) included some
and maintenance of social norms, while Openness may have a stronger measure of academic success or achievement (GPA, standardized test
relationship with engagement, as it is related to the desire for and scores, absenteeism, homework behavior, classroom misbehavior, or
enjoyment of new experiences. Extraversion may have a weaker rela­ positive classroom behavior); c) included only students between sixth
tionship with both types of positive classroom behaviors, because and twelfth grades (or the equivalent in school systems outside of the

3
P.R. Hessen and N.R. Kuncel Personality and Individual Differences 199 (2022) 111809

United States) in at least one data set of the study; and d) contained social behaviors, academic adjustment, and recognition for good
statistical information usable for the purposes of determining effect behavior).
sizes, such as correlational data. No exclusion criteria were created Grade level was explored as a moderating variable for all relation­
regarding the country in which research was conducted, as the goal was ships where the sample size was large enough to allow for a useful
to explore the general relationship between personality and academic comparison (three or more samples per level). This moderator was
behavior. Both longitudinal and cross-sectional studies were included. operationalized with two levels: studies containing students in middle
Of the studies included in the final analysis, 48% were longitudinal. school (6th through 8th grade, or equivalent) versus those containing
For research that included multiple studies with the same sample, the students in high school (9th–12th grade, or equivalent). Another
average effect size across studies was used to maintain independence moderator that was considered was the country in which the study was
within the data set. Of the studies that were screened, 63 studies were conducted, but the small number of non-U.S. studies that were located
found to be relevant and met the criteria for inclusion and were subse­ precluded such an analysis.
quently analyzed and included. Several studies included more than one
independent sample; these were included separately. Relevant data from 3. Results
the studies was coded by the authors and recorded in an Excel
spreadsheet. 3.1. Results for grades
All studies in this meta-analysis presented data about the covariation
between personality measures and one or more measures of student The meta-analytic results for the relationships between the Big Five
success or behavior as captured by ratings. Effect size estimates were and grades are presented in Table 1. The unbolded values in Table 1
either taken directly from the individual studies in the form of correla­ display the relationships across all the studies collected, while the bol­
tion coefficients, or calculated from statistics directly convertible to ded values are those obtained when the analysis excludes the two studies
correlations, such as d-values. The data were analyzed using the method found in Westphal et al. (2020). The sample size of the two studies (N =
described in Hunter and Schmidt (1990) through the psychmeta package 12,146 and N = 6002) made this paper particularly influential in the
in R (Dahlke & Wiernik, 2019). final effect sizes. For the relationship between grades and the Big Five,
Generally, criteria were operationalized using the methods described effect sizes were very similar regardless of whether Westphal et al.
previously. Studies using GPA or grades used end of year or end of term (2020) was included, except in the case of Openness. When the paper
grades across all or some classes. If studies presented GPA separately for was excluded, the effect size for the relationship between Openness and
different classes, these effect sizes were collapsed into an overall grades increased from r = 0.15 to r = 0.23. Overall, Conscientiousness,
average. Test scores were operationalized as scores on standardized Agreeableness, and Openness were all consistently, positively related to
tests, such as the SSAT or GCSE. Scores on tests given to measure grades, and Neuroticism was consistently negatively related to grades.
knowledge gained on a specific subject after receiving instruction (pure The strongest relationship among the Big Five for the prediction of
achievement tests, such as term finals in a specific class) were not grades was for Openness, with Conscientiousness additionally showing a
included. Absenteeism was operationalized as simply the cumulative moderately positive relationship and Agreeableness displaying a weak
number of days a student was absent from school, and was not further positive relationship.
classified as voluntary or involuntary, as this information was not pro­ Table 2 displays results for the moderation of the relationship be­
vided in many of the studies used for this analysis. Homework behavior tween the Big Five and grades by the participants' stage in school: middle
included any measures aimed at establishing the level or persistence of school (6th–8th grades) versus high school (9th–12th grades). In
effort that students put into doing work outside of normal school hours. Table 2, the bolded results indicate the results of the analysis when the
These included measures of homework effort, time management in the Westphal et al. (2020) study was not included. The most noticeable
domain of homework, and (reverse) procrastination. Classroom misbe­ differences when Westphal et al. (2020) was excluded were for Open­
havior included all measures of aggression, verbal or physical, aggres­ ness and Agreeableness, where the strength of the relationship (at both
sive tendencies (including self-report), in addition to its more traditional levels of the moderator) was stronger when the study was not included.
operationalization as teacher ratings of rule breaking in the classroom. None of the traits show significant moderation by school stage. The re­
These constructs were collapsed as it is hypothesized that together, they sults of moderation for Conscientiousness approach significance; the
represent a broader construct of inappropriate behavior at school. slightly overlapping confidence intervals (middle = [0.10, 0.18], high =
Finally, positive classroom behaviors were separated into self-reported [0.17, 0.21]) suggest that the relationship between Conscientiousness
engagement (measured by classroom and extracurricular participa­ and grades may be stronger in high school than in middle school. For all
tion) and teacher-reported prosocial behaviors (measured as positive other Big Five there was no evidence of moderation by school stage in

Table 1
Meta-analysis of Big Five variables and grades.
k N r SDr SDres 95 % CI 80 % CV τ τSE I2

Conscientiousness 55 55,861 0.17 0.07 0.07 [0.15, 0.19] [0.08, 0.26] 0.07 0.01 83.34
53 37,713 0.17 0.09 0.08 [0.15, 0.20] [0.06, 0.28] 0.08 0.02 83.95
Extraversion 48 53,497 0.03 0.08 0.07 [0.00, 0.05] [− 0.07, 0.12] 0.07 0.02 85.75
46 35,349 0.03 0.10 0.09 [0.00, 0.06] [¡0.09, 0.15] 0.09 0.02 85.84
Neuroticism 49 53,461 − 0.05 0.08 0.07 [− 0.07, − 0.02] [− 0.14, 0.04] 0.07 0.02 84.10
47 35,313 ¡0.06 0.09 0.08 [¡0.08, ¡0.03] [¡0.17, 0.05] 0.08 0.02 84.12
Openness 46 43,092 0.15 0.13 0.13 [0.12, 0.19] [− 0.01, 0.32] 0.13 0.03 93.88
44 24,944 0.23 0.13 0.12 [0.19, 0.27] [0.07, 0.38] 0.12 0.02 89.82
Agreeableness 44 51,613 0.08 0.11 0.10 [0.05, 0.11] [− 0.06, 0.21] 0.10 0.02 92.70
42 33,465 0.13 0.10 0.09 [0.10, 0.16] [0.01, 0.25] 0.09 0.02 87.90

Note: k = number of studies contributing to meta-analysis; N = total sample size; r = mean observed correlation; SDr = observed standard deviation of r; CI = con­
fidence interval around r; CV = credibility interval around r ; τ = estimated standard deviation of effects across studies; τSE = standard error of τ2; I2 = estimated
percent variance not accounted for by sampling error.
Estimates in boldface represent results when Westphal et al., 2020 is not included, results in regular font represent results that include this study.

4
P.R. Hessen and N.R. Kuncel Personality and Individual Differences 199 (2022) 111809

Table 2
Meta-analysis of Big Five variables and grades with grade level as a moderator.
Grade k N r SDr SDres 95 % CI 80 % CV τ τSE I2

Conscientiousness Middle 16 21,650 0.14 0.08 0.07 [0.10, 0.18] [0.04, 0.24] 0.07 0.02 88.36
15 15,648 0.13 0.09 0.08 [0.08, 0.18] [0.01, 0.24] 0.08 0.02 88.35
High 35 28,440 0.19 0.07 0.06 [0.17, 0.21] [0.11, 0.27] 0.06 0.02 77.12
34 16,294 0.20 0.09 0.08 [0.17, 0.24] [0.10, 0.31] 0.08 0.02 76.63
Extraversion Middle 12 20,324 0.04 0.08 0.08 [ − 0.01, 0.09] [− 0.07, 0.14] 0.08 0.02 91.06
11 14,322 0.03 0.10 0.09 [¡0.03, 0.10] [¡0.09, 0.16] 0.09 0.02 91.80
High 31 26,782 0.01 0.08 0.07 [− 0.02, 0.04] [− 0.08, 0.11] 0.07 0.02 82.03
30 14,636 0.02 0.11 0.10 [¡0.02, 0.06] [¡0.11, 0.15] 0.10 0.02 82.35
Neuroticism Middle 13 20,465 − 0.06 0.07 0.07 [− 0.10, − 0.02] [− 0.15, 0.03] 0.07 0.02 87.21
12 14,463 ¡0.07 0.08 0.08 [¡0.12, ¡0.01] [¡0.17, 0.04] 0.08 0.02 87.92
High 31 26,605 − 0.05 0.08 0.07 [− 0.08, − 0.02] [− 0.14, 0.05] 0.08 0.02 82.65
30 14,459 ¡0.07 0.11 0.10 [¡0.11, ¡0.03] [¡0.20, 0.06] 0.10 0.02 81.57
Openness Middle 12 10,653 0.10 0.09 0.08 [0.05, 0.16] [− 0.01, 0.22] 0.08 0.02 86.47
11 4651 0.16 0.11 0.10 [0.08, 0.24] [0.02, 0.30] 0.10 0.03 82.21
High 27 25,656 0.12 0.08 0.07 [0.09, 0.15] [0.02, 0.22] 0.07 0.02 84.36
26 13,510 0.18 0.06 0.05 [0.15, 0.21] [0.12, 0.24] 0.05 0.01 56.08
Agreeableness Middle 10 18,971 0.08 0.09 0.08 [0.02, 0.14] [− 0.03, 0.20] 0.08 0.03 92.85
9 12,969 0.13 0.07 0.06 [0.08, 0.18] [0.04, 0.21] 0.06 0.01 84.23
High 29 26,251 0.06 0.12 0.12 [0.01, 0.10] [− 0.10, 0.21] 0.12 0.03 92.53
28 14,105 0.12 0.13 0.13 [0.07, 0.17] [¡0.05, 0.29] 0.13 0.03 89.24

Note: k = number of studies contributing to meta-analysis; N = total sample size; r = mean observed correlation; SDr = observed standard deviation of r; CI = con­
fidence interval around r; CV = credibility interval around r ; τ = estimated standard deviation of effects across studies; τSE = standard error of τ2; I2 = estimated
percent variance not accounted for by sampling error.
Estimates in boldface represent results when Westphal et al., 2020 is not included, results in regular font represent results that include this study.

their relationships with grades. consistently related to tests scores (e.g. confidence intervals do not
Finally, Table 3 shows the relationships between non-cognitive include zero), although the relationship is modest in magnitude. The
predictors outside of the Big Five and grades. Emotional intelligence sample sizes for the relationships of all six predictors with test scores are
has a moderately positive relationship with grades (r = 0.25), and self- much smaller than the sample sizes for grades, indicating a need for
efficacy has a stronger positive relationship with grades (r = 0.39). further research on the personality predictors of test scores, in order to
Psychoticism displays a moderately negative relationship with grades, reach more confident meta-analytic conclusions.
but the confidence interval includes zero. The small number of studies
for each of these sets of relationships, particularly emotional intelligence
and psychoticism, indicates a dearth of research on these potentially 3.3. Results for absenteeism
promising correlates of school grades.
The meta-analytic results of using the Big Five for the prediction of
absenteeism are displayed in Table 5 (with the same stipulations as
3.2. Results for test scores previous tables for bolded and unbolded values). The table demonstrates
that, for these relationships, when Westphal et al. (2020) is included, the
The meta-analytic results for the relationships between the Big Five strength of the relationship is once again noticeably attenuated for all
and Eysenckian Psychoticism with test scores are displayed in Table 4. Big Five variables.
Once again, the unbolded values describe the relationships across all As Table 5 indicates, when Westphal et al. (2020) is excluded, all Big
studies, while the bolded values represent the relationships when the Five traits, except for Neuroticism, correlate with absenteeism in the
two studies found in Westphal et al. (2020) have been excluded. In this negative direction. Conscientiousness has a relatively consistent,
case, the effect sizes with and without the paper are markedly different; moderately negative relationship with absenteeism (r = − .13), while
for example, the relationship of Conscientiousness with test scores in­ Neuroticism has a slightly stronger positive relationship with absen­
creases from r = 0.03 to r = 0.11 when the study in question is removed. teeism (r = .17). Both Openness and Agreeableness also show signifi­
Overall, the results for the prediction of test scores by the Big Five cant negative relationships with absenteeism, but both estimates have a
and Eysenckian Psychoticism show much weaker correlations than those large degree of variability. The number of studies using absenteeism as
found for the prediction of grades. In particular, the correlations of test an outcome in relation to any of the Big Five traits is relatively small,
scores with both Conscientiousness and Openness are reduced from the indicating a need for further research on this relationship. The small
correlations of those same traits with grades. However, both with and number of studies also precluded a moderator analysis by stage in
without Westphal et al. (2020), Openness is the only trait that is school.

Table 3
Meta-analysis of other personality variables and grades.
k N r SDr SDres 95 % CI 80 % CV τ τSE I2

Emotional intelligence 6 1562 0.25 0.12 0.11 [0.12, 0.38] [0.09, 0.41] 0.11 0.04 77.33
Self-efficacy 9 8250 0.39 0.09 0.09 [0.32, 0.46] [0.26, 0.51] 0.09 0.02 91.20
Psychoticism 4 1148 − 0.15 0.15 0.14 [− 0.39, 0.09] [− 0.38, 0.08] 0.14 0.05 85.74

Note: k = number of studies contributing to meta-analysis; N = total sample size; r = mean observed correlation; SDr = observed standard deviation of r; CI = con­
fidence interval around r; CV = credibility interval around r ; τ = estimated standard deviation of effects across studies; τSE = standard error of τ2; I2 = estimated
percent variance not accounted for by sampling error.

5
P.R. Hessen and N.R. Kuncel Personality and Individual Differences 199 (2022) 111809

Table 4
Meta-analysis of Big Five (and psychoticism) and test scores.
k N r SDr SDres 95 % CI 80 % CV τ τSE I2

Conscientiousness 8 28,122 0.03 0.11 0.11 [− 0.06, 0.12] [− 0.12, 0.19] 0.11 0.03 97.58
6 9974 0.11 0.14 0.14 [¡0.04, 0.26] [¡0.09, 0.31] 0.14 0.05 96.98
Extraversion 11 28,855 0.01 0.07 0.07 [− 0.04, 0.06] [− 0.09, 0.11] 0.07 0.02 93.05
9 10,707 ¡0.04 0.10 0.10 [¡0.12, 0.03] [¡0.18, 0.09] 0.10 0.03 91.56
Neuroticism 12 29,000 − 0.06 0.05 0.04 [− 0.09, − 0.02] [− 0.11, 0.00] 0.04 0.01 82.20
10 10,852 ¡0.03 0.07 0.07 [¡0.08, 0.02] [¡0.12, 0.06] 0.07 0.02 82.34
Openness 7 27,842 0.06 0.06 0.05 [0.01, 0.11] [− 0.01, 0.14] 0.05 0.02 91.74
5 9694 0.10 0.04 0.03 [0.05, 0.15] [0.04, 0.15] 0.04 0.01 70.26
Agreeableness 6 27,693 − 0.05 0.05 0.04 [− 0.10, − 0.00] [− 0.11, 0.01] 0.04 0.01 89.69
4 9545 ¡0.02 0.06 0.06 [¡0.11, 0.08] [¡0.11, 0.08] 0.06 0.02 88.21
Psychoticism 5 1151 − 0.10 0.14 0.12 [− 0.27, 0.07] [− 0.28, 0.08] 0.12 0.04 76.71

_____________________________________________________________________________________________.
Note: k = number of studies contributing to meta-analysis; N = total sample size; r = mean observed correlation; SDr = observed standard deviation of r; CI = con­
fidence interval around r; CV = credibility interval around r ; τ = estimated standard deviation of effects across studies; τSE = standard error of τ2; I2 = estimated
percent variance not accounted for by sampling error.
Estimates in boldface represent results when Westphal et al., 2020 is not included, results in regular font represent results that include this study.

Table 5
Meta-analysis of Big Five and absenteeism.
k N r SDr SDres 95 % CI 80 % CV τ τSE I2

Conscientiousness 11 20,962 − 0.10 0.03 0.02 [− 0.11, − 0.08] [− 0.12, − 0.07] 0.02 0.01 33.76
9 2814 ¡0.13 0.06 0.03 [¡0.18, ¡0.08] [¡0.18, ¡0.09] 0.03 0.03 24.38
Extraversion 10 20,537 0.02 0.05 0.05 [− 0.02, 0.05] [− 0.05, 0.08] 0.05 0.01 81.26
8 2389 ¡0.04 0.14 0.12 [¡0.15, 0.08] [¡0.21, 0.14] 0.12 0.04 82.05
Neuroticism 9 20,275 0.04 0.05 0.05 [0.00, 0.08] [− 0.02, 0.10] 0.05 0.01 82.03
7 2127 0.17 0.05 0.00 [0.12, 0.22] [0.17, 0.17] 0.00 0.00 0.00a
Openness 9 20,275 0.03 0.08 0.07 [− 0.03, 0.08] [− 0.08, 0.13] 0.07 0.02 92.36
7 2127 ¡0.15 0.12 0.11 [¡0.26, ¡0.04] [¡0.30, 0.00] 0.11 0.03 78.02
Agreeableness 9 20,275 − 0.04 0.05 0.04 [− 0.08, − 0.00] [− 0.10, 0.02] 0.04 0.01 79.35
7 2127 ¡0.12 0.10 0.08 [¡0.22, ¡0.03] [¡0.24, ¡0.00] 0.08 0.03 68.67

Note: k = number of studies contributing to meta-analysis; N = total sample size; r = mean observed correlation; SDr = observed standard deviation of r; CI = con­
fidence interval around r; CV = credibility interval around r ; τ = estimated standard deviation of effects across studies; τSE = standard error of τ2; I2 = estimated
percent variance not accounted for by sampling error.
Estimates in boldface represent results when Westphal et al., 2020 is not included, results in regular font represent results that include this study.
a
Negative values of I2 are set equal to zero so that I2 lies between 0.00 % and 100 % (Higgins et al., 2003).

3.4. Results for homework behavior 3.5. Results for classroom misbehavior

The relationships between the Big Five traits and homework Table 7 displays the relationships between the Big Five traits and
behavior are displayed in Table 6. It should be noted that for Openness, classroom misbehavior, while Table 8 shows the moderation of these
only one study could be found that examined this relationship, the result relationships by grade level. All the Big Five traits except Neuroticism
of which is displayed below and should be interpreted with due caution. predict classroom misbehavior in the negative direction. In particular,
The result for Conscientiousness demonstrates a consistently positive the relationship between Agreeableness and classroom misbehavior is
relationship with homework behavior, albeit with considerable vari­ strongly negative (r = − .46), while the other traits display small-to-
ability. Agreeableness also appears as though it may have a relationship moderate relationships. None of the traits display significant modera­
with homework behavior, but the number of studies (across all traits) is tion by grade level, although the large amount of residual variability
too low to draw firm conclusions. suggests other moderators may be in play.

Table 6
Meta-analysis of Big Five variables and homework behavior.
k N r SDr SDres 95 % CI 80 % CV τ τSE I2

Conscientiousness 7 20,581 0.27 0.23 0.23 [0.05, 0.48] [− 0.06, 0.60] 0.23 0.07 99.45
Extraversion 4 16,210 − 0.00 0.03 0.02 [− 0.05, 0.05] [− 0.04, 0.04] 0.02 0.01 70.72
Neuroticism 3 15,824 − 0.02 0.06 0.06 [− 0.18, 0.14] [− 0.14, 0.10] 0.06 0.02 95.40
Openness 1 5198 0.18 – – – – – – –
Agreeableness 4 16,210 0.16 0.12 0.12 [− 0.03, 0.36] [− 0.04, 0.37] 0.12 0.04 98.48

Note: k = number of studies contributing to meta-analysis; N = total sample size; r = mean observed correlation; SDr = observed standard deviation of r; CI = con­
fidence interval around r; CV = credibility interval around r ; τ = estimated standard deviation of effects across studies; τSE = standard error of τ2; I2 = estimated
percent variance not accounted for by sampling error.

6
P.R. Hessen and N.R. Kuncel Personality and Individual Differences 199 (2022) 111809

Table 7
Meta-analysis of Big Five variables and classroom misbehavior.
k N r SDr SDres 95 % CI 80 % CV τ τSE I2

Conscientiousness 16 5422 − 0.19 0.10 0.09 [− 0.25, − 0.14] [− 0.31, − 0.08] 0.09 0.02 72.85
Extraversion 15 4879 − 0.13 0.15 0.14 [− 0.21, − 0.05] [− 0.31, 0.06] 0.14 0.03 86.13
Neuroticism 16 5012 0.19 0.16 0.15 [0.11, 0.28] [− 0.01, 0.39] 0.15 0.03 88.37
Openness 13 4287 − 0.17 0.16 0.15 [− 0.27, − 0.08] [− 0.37, 0.02] 0.15 0.03 88.01
Agreeableness 13 4287 − 0.46 0.26 0.26 [− 0.61, − 0.30] [− 0.80, − 0.11] 0.26 0.05 97.17

Note: k = number of studies contributing to meta-analysis; N = total sample size; r = mean observed correlation; SDr = observed standard deviation of r; CI = con­
fidence interval around r; CV = credibility interval around r ; τ = estimated standard deviation of effects across studies; τSE = standard error of τ2; I2 = estimated
percent variance not accounted for by sampling error.

Table 8
Meta-analysis of Big Five variables and classroom misbehavior with grade level as a moderator.
Grade k N r SDr SDres 95 % CI 80 % CV τ τSE I2

Conscientiousness Middle 5 1607 − 0.21 0.16 0.15 [− 0.41, − 0.01] [− 0.44, 0.02] 0.15 0.05 88.66
High 10 3571 − 0.18 0.08 0.06 [− 0.24, − 0.13] [− 0.26, − 0.11] 0.06 0.02 54.02
Extraversion Middle 7 2077 − 0.16 0.17 0.16 [− 0.32, 0.00] [− 0.39, 0.08] 0.16 0.05 89.00
High 7 2558 − 0.11 0.14 0.13 [− 0.24, 0.01] [− 0.29, 0.07] 0.13 0.04 85.44
Neuroticism Middle 8 2210 0.17 0.13 0.11 [0.06, 0.27] [0.01, 0.32] 0.11 0.03 78.19
High 7 2558 0.23 0.19 0.18 [0.06, 0.40] [− 0.03, 0.49] 0.18 0.05 92.94
Openness Middle 6 1740 − 0.21 0.19 0.18 [− 0.41, − 0.01] [− 0.48, 0.06] 0.18 0.06 91.42
High 6 2303 − 0.14 0.14 0.13 [− 0.29, 0.00] [− 0.33, 0.05] 0.13 0.04 86.70
Agreeableness Middle 6 1740 − 0.47 0.28 0.28 [− 0.77, − 0.18] [− 0.88, − 0.06] 0.28 0.08 97.38
High 6 2303 − 0.46 0.27 0.27 [− 0.75, − 0.18] [− 0.86, − 0.07] 0.27 0.07 97.81

Note: k = number of studies contributing to meta-analysis; N = total sample size; r = mean observed correlation; SDr = observed standard deviation of r; CI = con­
fidence interval around r; CV = credibility interval around r ; τ = estimated standard deviation of effects across studies; τSE = standard error of τ2; I2 = estimated
percent variance not accounted for by sampling error.

3.6. Results for positive classroom behavior classroom misbehavior (negatively) and classroom engagement (posi­
tively) but is not as strongly associated with grades or other outcomes.
Table 9 displays the results for the relationship of the Big Five with Neuroticism is the best predictor of absenteeism but is unrelated to test
self-report, engagement-type positive classroom behaviors, while scores. Openness is a strong predictor of both grades and classroom
Table 10 displays the results for the Big Five and teacher-report, pro­ behavior (both positive and negative). Prior research has suggested that
social-type positive classroom behaviors. Measures of engagement show the inclusion of a variety of personality traits, when measured well, has
strong, consistent positive relationships with Conscientiousness, Open­ the potential to improve the academic admissions process (c.f. Hessen
ness, and Agreeableness. These relationships are also positive for pro­ et al., 2022). These arguments for considering the whole student in
social behaviors, but they are considerably weaker and have more counseling or admissions and for careful identification of all desired
uncertainty, particularly for Conscientiousness and Agreeableness. outcomes in admissions are supported by our results.
Openness shows the most stable positive relationship with prosocial Most research on the relationship between personality and academic
positive classroom behaviors. Neuroticism and Extraversion are not outcomes has been focused on constructs like Conscientiousness or Grit
consistently related to either type of positive classroom behavior. that are centered around work ethic or self-discipline. These very highly
related traits have shown consistent importance in the prediction of
4. Discussion outcomes like grades (Credé, 2018). However, the results of this analysis
make it clear that a broader range of personality traits are critically
In general, we observe important relationships between personality needed to fully understand student academic performance in younger
measures and multiple distinct outcomes representative of student suc­ populations, in addition to other important academic outcomes, such as
cess at school. Across the different outcome measures, different patterns classroom misbehavior and absenteeism. In addition to expanding the
of personality traits are found to be especially predictive. For example, criterion domain to reflect broader outcomes, the domain of personality
Agreeableness is strongly associated in opposite directions with that is studied in conjunction with these outcomes needs to be expanded

Table 9
Meta-analysis of Big Five variables and positive classroom behaviors (engagement).
k N r SDr SDres 95 % CI 80 % CV τ τSE I2

Conscientiousness 8 13,737 0.34 0.08 0.08 [0.27, 0.41] [0.23, 0.45] 0.08 0.02 93.46
Extraversion 6 12,759 0.21 0.17 0.17 [0.03, 0.38] [− 0.04, 0.45] 0.17 0.05 98.47
Neuroticism 6 12,759 − 0.11 0.07 0.07 [− 0.19, − 0.03] [− 0.21, − 0.00] 0.07 0.02 91.67
Openness 5 12,501 0.34 0.06 0.05 [0.27, 0.40] [0.25, 0.42] 0.05 0.02 89.90
Agreeableness 5 12,501 0.40 0.07 0.06 [0.32, 0.48] [0.30, 0.50] 0.07 0.02 93.69

Note: k = number of studies contributing to meta-analysis; N = total sample size; r = mean observed correlation; SDr = observed standard deviation of r; CI = con­
fidence interval around r; CV = credibility interval around r ; τ = estimated standard deviation of effects across studies; τSE = standard error of τ2; I2 = estimated
percent variance not accounted for by sampling error.

7
P.R. Hessen and N.R. Kuncel Personality and Individual Differences 199 (2022) 111809

Table 10
Meta-analysis of Big Five variables and positive classroom behaviors (prosocial).
k N r SDr SDres 95 % CI 80 % CV τ τSE I2

Conscientiousness 7 1554 0.25 0.14 0.13 [0.12, 0.38] [0.07, 0.43] 0.13 0.04 80.06
Extraversion 6 1379 0.08 0.13 0.12 [− 0.06, 0.22] [− 0.09, 0.25] 0.12 0.04 76.20
Neuroticism 6 1379 − 0.04 0.14 0.13 [− 0.20, 0.11] [− 0.23, 0.15] 0.13 0.04 79.04
Openness 6 1379 0.20 0.08 0.04 [0.12, 0.28] [0.14, 0.27] 0.04 0.04 30.24
Agreeableness 6 1379 0.19 0.10 0.08 [0.08, 0.30] [0.07, 0.31] 0.08 0.04 61.62

_____________________________________________________________________________________________.
Note: k = number of studies contributing to meta-analysis; N = total sample size; r = mean observed correlation; SDr = observed standard deviation of r; CI = con­
fidence interval around r; CV = credibility interval around r ; τ = estimated standard deviation of effects across studies; τSE = standard error of τ2; I2 = estimated
percent variance not accounted for by sampling error.

as well, to include less commonly studied traits, such as creativity and the BFI-10, which consists of only two questions for each trait. Lower
self-efficacy. reliability due to the use of a shorter scale could have led to attenuated
Overall, the results of this analysis show a similar pattern of associ­ relationships. Additionally, specifically for the relationships of the Big
ations between the Big Five and grades to those that previous studies, Five with absenteeism, Westphal et al. excluded all cases from their
including those which studied older populations, have shown, with a analysis where the number of days absent from school exceeded 27 (for
few notable differences. The effect sizes found for Conscientiousness and Sample 1) or 19 (for Sample 2). This could reduce variability in absen­
grades are very similar to that found in the past, including by Poropat teeism, further contributing to attenuated relationships. A final possible
(2009). The effect size for Openness, however, was the largest of any of explanation is cross-cultural differences that depress the relationship
the Big Five traits and is considerably larger than what has typically between personality and outcomes in the German school system, where
been found in previous research with college samples and in previous the data for the study were obtained. Overall, we are intrigued by the
research with younger samples. Agreeableness, to a lesser extent, also possibility of methodological or cross-cultural differences that may have
exhibited a larger relationship with grades than has been noted previ­ resulted in the observed differences, but we are unable to provide a
ously. It is unclear whether these differences are an artifact of the sample comprehensive explanation with the data given.
of studies included, or whether they represent a true difference in the As a study of correlational relationships, this analysis is limited in its
relationship between personality and grades in middle school and high ability to test for a causal relationship between any two variables.
school as opposed to college. We suggest two possible explanations. The However, despite this limitation, there is a large body of evidence to
first is that the nature of schoolwork earlier in life may be more support the idea that personality is causally related to performance in
dependent on creative or collaborative work, placing a premium on school. The current body of research contains myriad evidence that
Openness and Agreeableness for students at younger grade levels. The personality traits often influence life outcomes through behaviors that
second is that the grading process of teachers in younger grades may be mediate the relationship. As described previously, research by Roberts
more influenced by the Openness or Agreeableness of students. et al. (2007) illustrated that various personality traits are predictive of
Considerable heterogeneity remained even after taking sampling error mortality due to their effect on behaviors that promote or detract from
into account, suggesting that the importance of these traits may vary to health; for example, people low in Conscientiousness are less likely to
some degree by sample or setting. wear a seat belt and exercise regularly, and more likely to smoke.
The moderation analysis for grades provides some evidence that Furthermore, there is evidence that suggests that personality may have a
Conscientiousness may become more important for the prediction of causal influence on academic performance in college through the
grades as students graduate from middle school to high school. One mediating constructs of study habits and attitudes (Credé & Kuncel,
potential explanation for this is that the nature of work may change 2008). In college, the influence of Conscientiousness on student success
across grade levels, such that as students age, they are increasingly is clear when considering behaviors such as engaging with discussions
responsible for guiding and managing their own learning, requiring and completing optional work (Keiser et al., 2016). This evidence sug­
higher levels of Conscientiousness for successful performance. Our post gests that personality is likely a somewhat distal predictor of academic
hoc review of these studies did not reveal any other promising potential success, mediated by more proximal predictors, including behaviors like
moderators, as little information about the specific school or setting study habits. Although there has been less research on this subject in
were provided. middle school and high school samples, evidence has been found to
Emotional Intelligence also showed a strong positive correlation with support the idea that homework behavior mediates the relationship
grades; however, there were only 6 studies in the sample. Similarly, between Conscientiousness and grades in younger students as well
Eysenckian Psychoticism showed a moderate negative relationship with (Trautwein et al., 2006). Future research should further examine this
grades, but this result was based on only 4 studies. A greater number of relationship, especially in middle school and high school students, while
studies showing similar results would increase confidence in these also looking for behaviors mediating the relationship between other
findings and is certainly warranted given the initial findings. Self- personality variables, such as Openness to Experience and Emotional
efficacy showed more stable results due to a slightly larger number of Intelligence, and grades.
samples and was the strongest predictor of grades out of any of the The prediction of test scores by personality shows only weak effect
predictors examined here. This is a promising avenue for future research sizes. As with the prediction of grades, Conscientiousness and Openness
and should be re-examined as the number of primary studies increases. show the largest effect sizes, but for test scores, none of the effect sizes
Due to its large sample size, a study by Westphal et al. (2020) had are as large. Our hypothesized explanation for this is that tests, showing
disproportionate weight in the analyses it was included in. As of result of only one instance of performance rather than an aggregate of perfor­
this, average effect sizes between the Big Five and grades, absenteeism, mance over time, may be an example of maximal performance versus the
and test scores were each calculated twice, one with the Westphal et al. typical performance that may be displayed in grades or GPA. Generally,
(2020) study and once without. One potential explanation for the personality is seen as being a greater contributor to typical performance,
attenuated results found in several of these analyses where the Westphal while intelligence has a larger impact on maximum performance
et al. paper was included is that the study used a short form of the BFI, (Cronbach, 1984; Marcus et al., 2007). This could explain the relatively

8
P.R. Hessen and N.R. Kuncel Personality and Individual Differences 199 (2022) 111809

small effect sizes found between personality and test scores (a measure Generally, our analysis indicates that facets of academic perfor­
of maximum performance) as compared to personality and GPA (a mance that are further removed from cognitive ability, such as absen­
measure of more typical performance). Future studies that include a teeism and misbehavior in the classroom, can be more strongly
measure of cognitive ability while examining the relationship between predicted by personality. It appears that several Big Five traits are useful
personality and test scores could begin to test this hypothesis. for predicting which students are likely to be absent or display either
When the relationships between personality and the less commonly particularly positive or particularly problematic behavior in the class­
studied outcome variables of absenteeism, homework behaviors, class­ room, and that Conscientiousness may be a strong indicator of which
room misbehavior, and positive classroom behaviors are examined, students are more likely to do their homework.
several interesting findings emerge. Although the smaller sample sizes Compared to the individual differences literature as a whole, many of
for these relationships make it difficult to draw firm conclusions, this our results are typical in size (~0.20) and some are large (~0.30) or very
study finds that the Big Five show several moderate correlations with large (~0.40) based on what is normally found in individual differences
absenteeism, and several strong correlations with classroom misbe­ research (Gignac & Szodorai, 2016). To put this in more concrete terms,
havior, positive classroom behaviors and homework behaviors. the correlation we found between, for example, Conscientiousness and
Neuroticism shows the strongest effect size out of the Big Five, and homework behavior, is 0.27. This means that a student in the 75th
the only positive one, for its relationship with absenteeism. This can be percentile on Conscientiousness would, on average, be at the 57th
theoretically be explained by the facets of Neuroticism related to poor percentile for homework behavior, while a student in the 25th percentile
adjustment and low resilience to stressful situations. Because school can for Conscientiousness would, on average, be at the 43rd percentile for
be a stressful environment for students, high levels of Neuroticism could homework behavior. A student in the 75th percentile on Agreeableness
lead to absenteeism, as students lack the ability to adequately cope with would, on average, be at the 38th percentile for classroom misbehavior,
the stress (Lounsbury et al., 2004). Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, while a student in the 25th percentile would, on average, be at the 72nd
and Openness to Experience show moderate negative correlations with percentile. Awareness of the effects personality traits can have on these
absenteeism. Conscientiousness may correlate negatively with absen­ classroom behaviors can pave the way for increased understanding of
teeism by leading students high in the trait to avoid tardiness or skipping student behavior and improved selection and intervention.
school, and students high in Openness may experience greater enjoy­
ment of school and learning, leading to lower levels of absenteeism. 4.1. Limitations and future directions
However, the idea that these behaviors mediate the relationship be­
tween personality traits and absenteeism is only hypothetical and will In addition to the inability to ascertain causality mentioned earlier,
need to be tested through further research. there are several other limitations of the study that are worth
Classroom misbehavior is strongly negatively predicted by Agree­ mentioning. As is always the case with meta-analyses, we are at the
ableness. This can be explained by personality taxonomies which show mercy of the available studies, which may or may not provide complete
aggression as representing a significant portion of the negative pole of and sufficient data. For many of our analyses of less commonly studied
Agreeableness (c.f. Hirsh et al., 2009), given that self-reports of criteria, a modest number of primary studies were available. These re­
aggressive tendencies were included in this analysis as a facet of class­ sults should be interpreted with caution.
room misbehavior. Additionally, high levels of disagreeableness would Additionally, although there are several moderators of interest when
likely lead to noticeably poorer relationships with classmates and examining personality predictors of academic success (including gender
teachers, contributing to ratings of poor classroom behavior. Openness and school type), we were only able to test for moderation by academic
to Experience, Extraversion, and Conscientiousness all also show mod­ level, as information on potentially moderating variables was not
erate negative correlations, and Neuroticism shows a moderate positive available in most studies. In the future, analysis of other potentially
correlation. Once again, further research to identify the mechanisms by moderating variables like gender or school type on the relationships
which these personality constructs impact classroom misbehavior is studied here would be an interesting and potentially fruitful line of
necessary. There is no significant moderation of the relationship by research. A more fine-grained analysis of how these relationships are
academic level, indicating that the relationship between the Big Five and affected by age by looking at changes across different grades (rather
classroom misbehavior is the same in middle school as in high school. than grouping grades into middle and high school), or through longi­
Homework behavior is most strongly related to Conscientiousness, tudinal methods, could also produce interesting results.
although the sample size is low. This makes sense, given that consci­ As stated previously, due to the relatively small number of non-U.S.
entious individuals are dependable and have a strong will to achieve. In studies identified for this analysis, it was not possible to examine the
the context of school, this may provide them with the determination and country in which studies were conducted as a moderator. However,
perseverance to complete homework thoroughly and in a timely there is evidence that learning attitudes and their relationship to aca­
manner. As mentioned earlier, this may also be a mediating factor in the demic achievement may differ across countries (c.f. Täht & Must, 2013).
relationship between Conscientiousness and grades (Trautwein et al., If learning attitudes mediate the relationship between personality and
2006). academic behaviors, it is possible that we would also see differences in
For positive classroom behaviors, as well, the sample size is too low these relationships across cultures. Further exploration is needed to
to draw firm conclusions, but there appears to be a positive relationship determine whether the relationships found here are consistent around
between Conscientiousness, Openness, and Agreeableness, with both the world.
engagement-type and prosocial-type positive classroom behaviors. In In addition to learning attitudes, another reason we might see
general, these relationships are stronger for engagement behaviors than moderation of the personality and academic behavior relationships
for prosocial behaviors. Extraversion also demonstrates a moderate across countries is differences in situational strength across the educa­
relationship with engagement, but this estimate is widely variable. The tional systems of different countries. Situational strength was originally
large degree of variability may be due to the somewhat diverse variety of described by Mischel (1977), who characterized a strong situation as
outcomes included in both categories of positive classroom behavior. As one which generates “relatively uniform expectancies concerning
the body of primary research grows, the relationships between Big Five appropriate behavior”, whereas a weak situation lacks these character­
traits and narrower categories of positive classroom behavior (e.g. istics. It is generally hypothesized that strong situations limit the effect
participation in class, extracurricular participation, recognitions for that personality has on outcomes, by limiting the range of behaviors that
good behavior) should be examined meta-analytically. Moderation by are displayed. This hypothesis has been tested empirically on multiple
grade level was not tested for these outcome variables due to the low occasions, including by Beaty et al. (2001), who examined its impact on
sample size but should also be examined in future research. the relationship between personality and contextual performance in the

9
P.R. Hessen and N.R. Kuncel Personality and Individual Differences 199 (2022) 111809

workplace. They demonstrated that the relationship between personal­ incremental validity in the current meta-analysis, as very few of the
ity and contextual performance varies based on how strongly the situ­ constituent studies reported on cognitive ability. However, studies that
ation (in this case, the work environment) values and rewards have examined this topic in the past have provided informative results,
contextual performance. Additionally, Barrick and Mount (1993) found and future research should examine both the predictive power of
similar results when looking at how the degree of autonomy in a work cognitive ability for outcomes like absenteeism and classroom behavior
setting influenced the relationship between personality and job (on which there has been less research), and whether personality adds
performance. incremental validity beyond cognitive ability for those outcomes.
Overall, these studies on situational strength indicate that in stronger
situations, the relationship between personality variables and outcome Funding
variables may be weaker than in weaker situations. Situational strength
should be considered and studied as a moderator of personality and This material is based upon work supported by the National Science
academic performance relationships and should be accounted for in Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship.
future research. For example, in a school where much of student work is
team based, Agreeableness would be likely to demonstrate stronger Data availability
correlations with outcomes than in a school where student behavior is
independent and monitored. Although we are not aware of an existing Data will be made available on request.
measure of situational strength in academic settings, such a measure
exists for the workplace (c.f. Meyer et al., 2014; the Situational Strength References1
at Work Scale) and could presumably be adapted for use in academic
settings. Situational strength could also, potentially, provide an expla­ Allik, J., Laidra, K., Realo, A., & Pullmann, H. (2004). Personality development from 12
to 18 years of age: Changes in mean levels and structure of traits. European Journal of
nation of the results found in the Westphal et al. (2020) study. If the Personality, 18, 445–462. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.524
German school system happened to present stronger-than-average Banks, G. C., Kepes, S., & Banks, K. P. (2012). Publication bias: The antagonist of meta-
situational strength, this phenomenon could explain the relatively analytic reviews and effective policymaking. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 34(3), 259–277. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373712446144
small effect sizes they found. Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., Rabasca, A., & Pastorelli, C. (2003). A questionnaire for
It may be viewed as a further limitation that no corrections were measuring the Big Five in late childhood. Journal of Personality and Individual
made to the observed correlations to account for range restriction or Differences, 34, 645–664.
Barger, M. M., Kim, E. M., Kuncel, N. R., & Pomerantz, E. M. (2019). The relation
reliability of the measurements. However, range restriction was likely to between parents’ involvement in children’s schooling and children’s adjustment: A
have been minimal, as this study focused on middle and high school meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 145(9), 855–890. https://doi.org/10.1037/
students, for whom attendance at school is generally compulsory in the bul0000201
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job
countries studied. Additionally, not correcting for unreliability in the
performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26.
predictor measures allows for analysis of their operational validity, or Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1993). Autonomy as a moderator of the relations between
the validity that these measures would show when used in a real-life the big five personality dimensions and job performance. Journal of Applied
situation, rather than the validity of the underlying construct. In addi­ Psychology, 78, 111–118.
Beaty, J. C., Cleveland, J. N., & Murphy, K. R. (2001). The relation between personality
tion to exploring other potentially moderating variables (besides aca­ and contextual performance in “strong” versus “weak” situations. Human
demic level), there is also potential to expand the criterion domain past Performance, 14(2), 125–148.
the outcome variables studied here. In addition to further research on Bogg, T., & Roberts, B. W. (2004). Conscientiousness and health-related behaviors: A
meta-analysis of the leading behavioral contributors to mortality. Psychological
the relationship of personality with classroom misbehavior and absen­ Bulletin, 130(6), 887–919. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.130.6.887
teeism, future research should examine the role of personality in lesser Caspi, A., Roberts, B. W., & Shiner, R. L. (2005). Personality development: Stability and
studied academic outcomes including leadership accomplishments, change. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 453–484. https://doi.org/10.1146/
annurev.psych.55.090902.141913
community involvement, and academic dishonesty. Future research Ceci, S. J., & Williams, W. M. (1997). Schooling, intelligence, and income. American
should also consider the existence and nature of higher-order constructs Psychologist, 52(10), 1051–1058. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.10.1051
that subsume the more specific facets of classroom behavior examined Connolly, I., & O'Moore, M. (2003). Personality and family relations of children who
bully. Journal of Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 559–567.
here. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Four ways five factors are basic. Journal of
Some research exists already on the relationship between personality Personality and Individual Differences, 13(6), 653–665.
and academic dishonesty. Both Giluk and Postlethwaite (2015) and Lee Credé, M. (2018). What shall we do about grit? A critical review of what we know and
what we don’t know. Educational Researcher, 47(9), 606–611.
et al. (2020) performed meta-analyses of the relationship between the
Credé, M., & Kuncel, N. R. (2008). Study habits, skills, and attitudes: The third pillar
Big Five and academic dishonesty in (primarily) college-aged students supporting collegiate academic performance. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3
(in Giluk and Postlethwaite, two samples included high school students, (6), 425–453.
but these samples only examined Neuroticism as a predictor). Both Credé, M., Roch, S. G., & Kieszczynka, U. M. (2010). Class attendance in college: A meta-
analytic review of the relationship of class attendance with grades and student
meta-analyses found that academic dishonesty was related to Consci­ characteristics. Review of Educational Research, 80(2), 272–295.
entiousness and Agreeableness, and Lee et al. additionally found that Crespo, M. (1984). School absenteeism and aspirations: A non-recursive path model.
several traits outside the Big Five (impulsivity, psychopathy) were even British Educational Research Journal, 10(2), 175–187.
Cronbach, L. J. (1984). A research worker’s treasure chest. Journal of Multivariate
more strongly related to academic dishonesty. Cuadrado et al. (2020) Behavioral Research, 19, 223–240.
also included cheating in their taxonomy of CABs, and their results also Cuadrado, D., Salgado, J. F., & Moscoso, S. (2020, March 16). Personality, intelligence,
indicated that Conscientiousness and Agreeableness both (negatively) and counterproductive academic behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000285
predicted cheating. Their sample combined students across all grade Dahlke, J. A., & Wiernik, B. M. (2019). Psychmeta: An R package for psychometric meta-
levels and college. However, given the evidence that personality may analysis. Applied Psychological Measurement, 43(5), 415–416. https://doi.org/
have different relationships with academic outcomes in younger stu­ 10.1177/0146621618795933
Damian, R. I., Su, R., Shanahan, M., Trautwein, U., & Roberts, B. (2015). Can personality
dents, research that examines these relationships in a younger sample is traits and intelligence compensate for background disadvantage? Predicting status
necessary. attainment in adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109, 473–489.
Finally, as described earlier, there is clear evidence that cognitive
ability is a strong predictor of academic success. Several studies have
attempted to determine the incremental predictive validity of non-
cognitive characteristics after accounting for cognitive ability in the
prediction of both academic and job performance (Credé & Kuncel, 1
References marked with an asterisk are studies included in the meta-
2008; Schmidt & Hunter, 1998). It was not possible to test for analyses.

10
P.R. Hessen and N.R. Kuncel Personality and Individual Differences 199 (2022) 111809

Davies, M., Stankov, L., & Roberts, R. D. (1998). Emotional intelligence: In search of an Poropat, A. E. (2009). A meta-analysis of the five-factor model of personality and
elusive construct. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(4), 989–1015. academic performance. Psychological Bulletin, 135(2), 322–338. https://doi.org/
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.4.989 10.1037/a0014996
DeYoung, C. G. (2015). Cybernetic big five theory. Journal of Research in Personality, 56, Poropat, A. E. (2010). The Eysenckian personality factors and their correlations with
33–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2014.07.004 academic performance. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 41–58. https://
DeYoung, C. G. (2020). Intelligence and personality. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The doi.org/10.1348/000709910X497671
Cambridge handbook of intelligence (pp. 711–737). New York: Cambridge University Roberts, B. W., Kuncel, N. R., Shiner, R., Caspi, A., & Goldberg, L. R. (2007). The power
Press. of personality: The comparative validity of personality traits, socioeconomic status,
Digman, J. M. (1989). Five robust trait dimensions: Development, stability, and utility. and cognitive ability for predicting important life outcomes. Perspectives on
Journal of Personality, 57(2), 195–214. Psychological Science, 2(4), 313–345.
Eysenck, H. J. (1995). How valid is the psychoticism scale? A comment on the Van Roth, P. L., BeVier, C. A., Switzer, F. S., & Schippmann, J. S. (1996). Meta-analyzing the
Kampen critique. European Journal of Psychology, 9, 103–108. relationship between grades and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81
Furnham, A., Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & McDougall, F. (2003). Personality, cognitive (5), 548–556.
ability, and beliefs about intelligence as predictors of academic performance. Journal Roth, P. L., & Clarke, R. L. (1998). Meta-analyzing the relationship between grades and
of Learning and Individual Differences, 14, 49–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. salary. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 53, 386–400.
lindif.2003.08.002 Rothstein, H. R., & Bushman, B. J. (2012). Publication bias in psychological science:
Gignac, G. E., & Szodorai, E. T. (2016). Effect size guidelines for individual differences Comment on Ferguson and Brannick (2012). Psychological Methods, 17(1), 129–136.
researchers. Personality and Individual Differences, 102, 74–78. https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027128
10.1016/j.paid.2016.06.069 Sackett, P. R., Zedeck, S., & Fogli, L. (1988). Relations between measures of typical
Giluk, T. L., & Postlethwaite, B. E. (2015). Big Five personality and academic dishonesty: andmaximum job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(3), 482–486.
A meta-analytic review. Personality and Individual Differences, 72, 59–67. https://doi. Salgado, J. F. (1997). The five factor model of personality and job performance in the
org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.08.027 European community. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(1), 30–43.
*Hair, E. C., & Graziano, W. G. (2003). Self esteem, personality, and achievement in high Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Journal of Imagination,
school: A prospective longitudinal study in Texas. Journal of Personality, 71(6), Cognition and Personality, 9(3), 185–211.
971–994. Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in
Hessen, P. R., Lee, S., & Kuncel, N. R. (2022). Assessment of social and emotional personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research
learning for admission and selection. In Invited Chapter in Assessing competencies for findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 262–274.
social and emotional learning: Conceptualization, development, and applications. Shiner, R. L., Masten, A. S., & Roberts, J. M. (2003). Childhood personality foreshadows
Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003). Measuring adult personality and life outcomes two decades later. Journal of Personality, 71(6),
inconsistency in meta-analyses. British Medical Journal (Clinical Research Ed.), 327, 1145–1170.
557–560. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 Spengler, M., Damian, R. I., & Roberts, B. W. (2018). How you behave in school predicts
Hirsh, J. B., DeYoung, C. G., & Peterson, J. B. (2009). Metatraits of the big five life success above and beyond family background, broad traits, and cognitive ability.
differentially predict engagement and restraint of behavior. Journal of Personality, 77 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 114(4), 620–636. https://doi.org/
(4), 1085–1102. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00575.x 10.1037/pspp0000185
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in Spengler, M., Lüdtke, O., Martin, R., & Brunner, M. (2013). Personality is related to
research findings. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. educational outcomes in late adolescence: Evidence from two large-scale
*Ivcevic, Z., & Brackett, M. (2014). Predicting school success: Comparing achievement studies. Journal of Research in Personality, 47(5), 613–625. https://doi.
conscientiousness, grit, and emotion regulation ability. Journal of Research in org/10.1016/j.jrp.2013.05.008
Personality, 52, 29–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2014.06.005 Täht, K., & Must, O. (2013). Comparability of educational achievement and learning
Keiser, H. N., Sackett, P. R., Kuncel, N. R., & Brothen, T. (2016). Why women perform attitudes across nations. Educational Research and Evaluation, 19(1), 19–38. https://
better in college than admission scores would predict: Exploring the roles of doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2012.750443
conscientiousness and course-taking patterns. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(4), *Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., Niggli, A., & Schnyder, I. (2006). Predicting homework
569. effort: Support for a domain-specific, multilevel homework model. Journal of
Krueger, R. F., & Markon, K. E. (2013). The role of the DSM-5 personality trait model in Educational Psychology, 98(2), 438–456. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
moving toward a quantitative and empirically based approach to classifying 0663.98.2.438
personality and psychopathology. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 10. https:// Towberman, D. B. (1994). Psychosocial antecedents of chronic delinquency. Journal of
doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032813-153732 Offender Rehabilitation, 21, 151–164. https://doi.org/10.1300/J076v21n01_10
Kuncel, N. R., & Hezlett, S. A. (2007). Standardized tests predict graduate students’ Van der Zee, K., Thijs, M., & Schakel, L. (2002). The relationship of emotional
success. Science, 315(5815), 1080–1081. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1136618 intelligence with academic intelligence and the big five. European Journal of
Kuncel, N. R., & Hezlett, S. A. (2010). Fact and fiction in cognitive ability testing for Personality, 16, 103–125. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.434
admissions and hiring decisions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19(6), *Westphal, A., Vock, M., & Lazarides, R. (2020). Are more conscientious seventh- and
339–345. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721410389459 ninth-graders less likely to be retained? Effects of Big Five personality traits on grade
Lee, S. D., Kuncel, N. R., & Gau, J. (2020). Personality, attitude, and demographic retention in two different age cohorts. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology,
correlated of academic dishonesty: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 146(11), 66, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2019.101088
1042–1058. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000300 Williams, P. G., & Wiebe, D. J. (2000). Individual differences in self-assessed health:
*Lounsbury, J. W., Steel, R. P., Loveland, J. M., & Gibson, L. W. (2004). An investigation Gender, neuroticism, and physical symptom reports. Personality and Individuals
of personality traits in relation to adolescent school absenteeism. Journal of Youth Differences, 28, 823–835.
and Adolescence, 33(5), 457–466. Woo, S. E., Harms, P. D., & Kuncel, N. R. (2007). Integrating personality and intelligence:
MacCann, C., Jiang, Y., Brown, L. E. R., Double, K. S., Bucich, M., & Minbashian, A. Typical intellectual engagement and need for cognition. Personality and Individual
(2020). Emotional intelligence predicts academic performance: A meta-analysis. Differences, 43(6), 1635–1639.
Psychological Bulletin, 146(2), 150–186. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000219 Zisman, C., & Ganzach, Y. (2022). The claim that personality is more important than
Marcus, B., Goffin, R. D., Johnston, N. G., & Rothstein, M. G. (2007). Personality and intelligence in predicting important life outcomes has been greatly exaggerated.
cognitive ability as predictors of typical and maximum managerial performance. Intelligence, 92, Article 101631. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2022.101631
Human Performance, 20(3), 275–285.
McCabe, K. O., Modecki, K. L., & Barber, B. L. (2016). Participation in organized
activities protects against adolescents’ risky substance use, even beyond
Further Reading
development in conscientiousness. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45, 2292–2306.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-016-0454-x *Abdo, N. (2011). Academic performance and social/emotional competence in
Mervielde, I., Buyst, V., & De Fruyt, F. (1995). The validity of the big five as a model for adolescence (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.ez
teachers’ ratings of individual differences among children aged 4-12 years. Journal of p1.lib.umn.edu/dissertations/docview/904106569/184377CCFDE4ADEPQ/2?acc
Personality and Individual Differences, 18(4), 525–534. ountid=14586.
Meyer, R. D., Dalal, R. S., José, I. J., Hermida, R., Chen, T. R., Vega, R. P., … Khare, V. P. *Affuso, G., Bacchini, D., & Miranda, M. C. (2016). The contribution of school-related
(2014). Measuring job-related situational strength and assessing its interactive parental monitoring, self-determination, and self-efficacy to academic achievement.
effects with personality on voluntary work behavior. Journal of Management, 40(4), The Journal of Educational Research, 110(5), 565–574. https://doi.org/10.1080/
1010–1041. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311425613 00220671.2016.1149795
Mischel, W. (1977). The interaction of person and situation. In D. Magnusson, & *Barthelemy, J. J. (2005). Aggression and the big five personality factors of grades and
N. S. Endler (Eds.), Personality at the crossroads: Current issues in interactional attendance (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://trace.tenne
psychology (pp. 333–352). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. ssee.edu/utk_graddiss/658.
O’Connor, M. C., & Paunonen, S. V. (2007). Big five personality predictors of post- *Bjurberg, H. (2014). Academic achievement and personality traits: An empirical and
secondary academic performance. Journal of Personality and Individual Differences, neurobiological investigation (Unpublished Bachelor’s thesis). Skövde: University of
43, 971–990. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.03.017 Skövde.
Orr, A. J. (1998). The effect of track position on absenteeism. Social Psychology of *Bratko, D., Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Saks, Z. (2006). Personality and school
Education, 1(4), 323–339. performance: Incremental validity of self- and peer-ratings over intelligence. Journal
Pope, A. W., & Bierman, K. L. (1999). Predicting adolescent peer problems and antisocial of Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 131–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
activities: The relative roles of aggression and dysregulation. Journal of paid.2005.12.015
Developmental Psychology, 35(2), 335–346.

11
P.R. Hessen and N.R. Kuncel Personality and Individual Differences 199 (2022) 111809

*Camps, E., & Morales-Vives, F. (2013). The contributions of psychological maturity and *Lounsbury, J. W., Tatum, H., Gibson, L. W., Park, S. H., Sundstrom, E. D., Hamrick, F. L.,
personality in the prediction of adolescent academic achievement. International & Wilburn, D. (2003). The development of a big five adolescent personality
Journal of Educational Psychology, 2(3), 246–271. https://doi.org/10.4471/ inventory. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 21, 111–133.
ijep.2013.27 *Loveland, J. M., Lounsbury, J. W., Welsh, D., & Buboltz, W. C. (2007). The validity of
*Carroll, A., Houghton, S., Wood, R., Unsworth, K., Hattie, J., Gordon, L. & Bower, J. physical aggression in predicting adolescent academic performance. British Journal of
Self-efficacy and academic achievement in Australian high school students: The Educational Psychology, 77, 167–176. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709905X79563
mediating effects of academic aspirations and delinquency. Journal of Adolescence, *Lubbers, M. J., Van Der Werf, M. P. C., Kuyper, H., & Hendriks, A. A. J. (2010). Does
32(4), 797–817. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2008.10.009. homework behavior mediate the relationship between personality and academic
*Di Fabio, A., & Busoni, L. (2007). Fluid intelligence, personality traits, and scholastic performance? Journal of Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 203–208. https://doi.
success: Empirical evidence in a sample of Italian high school students. Journal of org/10.1016/j.lindif.2010.01.005
Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 2095–2104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. *MacCann, C., Duckworth, A. L., & Roberts, R. D. (2009). Empirical identification of the
paid.2007.06.025 major facets of conscientiousness. Journal of Learning and Individual Differences, 19,
*Di Fabio, A., & Palazzeschi, L. (2009). An in-depth look at scholastic success: Fluid 451–458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2009.03.007
intelligence, personality traits, or emotional intelligence? Journal of Personality and *MacCann, C., Lipnevich, A., Poropat, A. E., Wiemers, M. J., & Roberts, R. D. (2015).
Individual Differences, 46, 581–585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.12.012 Self- and parent-rated facets of conscientiousness predict academic outcomes:
*Di Giunta, L., Alessandri, G., Gerbino, M., Kanacri, P. L., Zuffiano, A., & Caprara, G. V. Parent-reports are more predictive, particularly for approach-oriented facets.
(2013). The determinants of scholastic achievement: The contribution of personality Learning and Individual Differences, 42, 19–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
traits, self-esteem, and academic self-efficacy. Journal of Learning and Individual lindif.2015.07.012
Differences, 27, 102–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2013.07.006 *Marquez, P. G., Martín, R. P., & Brackett, M. A. (2006). Relating emotional intelligence
*Downey, L. A., Lomas, J., Billings, C., Hansen, K., & Stough, C. (2014). Scholastic to social competence and academic achievement in high school students. Psicothoma,
success: Fluid intelligence, personality, and emotional intelligence. Canadian Journal 18, 118–123.
of School Psychology, 29(1), 40–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/0829573513505411 *Marsh, H. W., Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., Köller, O., & Baumert, J. (2006). Integration of
*Dumfart, B., & Neubauer, A. C. (2016). Conscientiousness is the most powerful multidimensional self-concept and core personality constructs: Construct validation
noncognitive predictor of school achievement in adolescents. Journal of Individual and relations to well-being and achievement. Journal of Personality, 74(2), 403–456.
Differences, 37(1), 8–15. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001/a000182 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00380.x
*Dunsmore, J. A. (2005). An investigation of the predictive validity of broad and narrow *Peklaj, C., Podlesek, A., & Pecjak, S. (2015). Gender, previous knowledge, personality
personality traits in relation to academic achievement (Doctoral dissertation). traits and subject-specific motivation as predictors of students’ math grade in upper-
Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.ezp2.lib.umn.edu/dissertations/docvie secondary school. European Journal of Psychological Education, 30, 313–330. https://
w/305388184/E8A8789A3D74459CPQ/1?accountid=14586. doi.org/10.1007/s10212-014-0239-0
*Ehrler, D. J. (2005). An investigation into the relation between the Five-Factor model of *Perry, S. R. (2003). Big Five personality traits and work drive as predictors of adolescent
personality and educational achievement in children (Doctoral dissertation). academic performance (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://search-proque
Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.ezp2.lib.umn.edu/dissertations/docvie st-com.ezp2.lib.umn.edu/dissertations/docview/305294764/ED320E18D9294C
w/304999686/91F424368F9548D0PQ/1?accountid=14586. 8DPQ/1?accountid=14586.
*Evans, M. A. (2005). Links between personality traits and school aggression and *Qualter, P., et al. (2012). Ability emotional intelligence, trait emotional intelligence,
internalizing behaviors in African American early adolescents (Doctoral and academic success in British secondary schools: A 5 year longitudinal study.
dissertation). Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.ezp2.lib.umn.edu/disser Journal of Learning and Individual Differences, 22, 83–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tations/docview/305388240/C19C85D1C33F41C8PQ/3?accountid=14586. lindif.2011.11.007
*Furnham, A., Monsen, J., & Ahmetoglu, G. (2009). Typical intellectual engagement, Big *Rimfeld, K., Kovas, Y., Dale, P. S., & Plomin, R. (2016). True grit and genetics:
Five personality traits, approaches to learning and cognitive ability predictors of Predicting academic achievement from personality. Journal of Personality and Social
academic performance. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 769–782. Psychology, 111(5), 780–789. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000089
https://doi.org/10.1348/978185409X412147 *Rosander, P., Bӓckström, M., & Stenberg, G. (2011). Personality traits and general
*Gilles, P. Y., & Bailleux, C. (2001). Personality traits and abilities as predictors of intelligence as predictors of academic performance: A structural equation modeling
academic achievement. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 16(1), 3–15. approach. Journal of Learning and Individual Differences, 21, 590–596. https://doi.
*Ginns, P., Martin, A. J., & Papworth, B. (2014). Student learning theory goes (back) to org/10.1016/j.lindif.2011.04.004
(high) school. Instructional Science, 42, 485–504. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251- *Smrtnik-Vitulić, H., & Zupanĉiĉ, M. (2010). Robust and mid-level personality traits as
013-9291-4 predictors of adolescents’ academic achievement in secondary school. Suvremena
*Gollner, R., Damian, R. I., Rose, N., Spengler, M., Trautwein, U., Nagengast, B., & psihologija, 13(2), 203–219.
Roberts, B. W. (2018). Is doing your homework associated with becoming more *Smrtnik-Vitulić, H., & Zupanĉiĉ, M. (2011). Personality traits as a predictor of academic
conscientious? Journal of Research in Personality, 71, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/ achievement in adolescents. Educational Studies, 30(2), 127–140. https://doi.org/
j.jrp.2017.08.007 10.1080/03055691003729062
*Heaven, P. C. L., & Ciarrochi, J. (2008). Parental style, conscientiousness, and academic *Smrtnik-Vitulić, H., & Zupanĉiĉ, M. (2013). Robust and specific personality traits as
performance in high school: A three-wave longitudinal study. Personality and Social predictors of adolescents’ final grades and GPA at the end of compulsory schooling.
Psychology Bulletin, 34(4), 451–461. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167207311909 European Journal of Psychology of Education, 28, 1181–1199. https://doi.org/
*Heaven, P. C. L., & Ciarrochi, J. (2012). When IQ is not everything: Intelligence, 10.1007/s10212-012-0161-2
personality, and academic performance at school. Journal of Personality and *Spinath, B., Freudenthaler, H. H., & Neubauer, A. C. (2010). Domain-specific school
Individual Differences, 53, 518–522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.04.024 achievement in boys and girls as predicted by intelligence, personality, and
*Heaven, P. C. L., Ciarrochi, J., & Vialle, W. (2007). Conscientiousness and Eysenckian motivation. Journal of Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 481–486. https://
psychoticism as predictors of school grades: A one-year longitudinal study. Journal of doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.11.028
Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 535–546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. *Steinmayr, R., Bipp, T., & Spinath, B. (2011). Goal orientations predict academic
paid.2006.07.028 performance beyond intelligence and personality. Journal of Learning and Individual
*Hoigaard, R., Kovak, V. B., Overby, N. C., & Haugen, T. (2015). Academic self-efficacy Differences, 21, 196–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2010.11.026
mediates the effects of school psychological climate on academic achievement. *Steinmayr, R., & Spinath, B. (2008). Sex differences in school achievement: What are
School Psychology Quarterly, 30(1), 64–74. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000056 the roles of personality and achievement motivation. European Journal of Personality,
*Laidra, K., Pullmann, H., & Allik, J. (2007). Personality and intelligence as predictors of 22, 185–209. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.676
academic achievement: A cross-sectional study from elementary to secondary school. *Zuffiano, A., et al. (2013). Academic achievement: The unique contribution of self-
Journal of Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 441–451. https://doi.org/ efficacy beliefs in self-regulated learning beyond intelligence, personality traits, and
10.1016/j.paid.2006.08.001 self-esteem. Journal of Learning and Individual Differences, 23, 158–162. https://doi.
*Liu, O. L., Rijmen, F., MacCann, C., & Roberts, R. (2009). The assessment of time org/10.1016/j.lindif.2012.07.010
management in middle-school students. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, *Zupanĉiĉ, M., Kavĉiĉ, T., Slobodskaya, H. R., & Akhmetova, O. A. (2016). Broad and
174–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.02.018 narrow personality traits predicting academic achievement over compulsory
*Lounsbury, J. W., Sundstrom, E., Loveland, J. L., & Gibson, L. W. (2003). Broad versus schooling: A cross-sectional study in two countries. Journal of Early Adolescence, 36
narrow personality traits in predicting academic performance of adolescents. Journal (6), 783–806. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431615588954
of Learning and Individual Differences, 14, 67–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
lindif.2003.08.001

12